1) You reaction time is far worse than a computer. 2) Your estimation of distances is far worse than machines absolute measurements. 3) You are limited to two forward facing eyes, augmented by 3 small mirrors. And you share some of the vision time with looking at the dash. An auto-car can look in all directions at once, and monitor all dashboard information and more at the same time. 4) An auto-driver will be better at maintaining a safe speed. Able to stop in the distance it knows to be clear far more often than a human driver. 5) I'd expect an auto-driver system to be seperate from any other computing devices in the car, and connected to the internet or any other vector for hacking. I'd expect them to be as immune to hacking as an auto-pilot system in a plane.
If I was 'driving' the car and came accross a steep drop - I would take control.
Why? It's not an unexpected obstacle. By the time autodrivers are allowed in consumer cars you can expect the auto-driver to be able to deal with it better than you can.
Are you expecting to just hop in your car and fall asleep and let your car take you to your destination?
Yes. I see no reason why at some point in the future an auto-driver will be a statistically safer driver than I am. So why not?
The plan to allow test vehicles to cover a large number of miles and then compare collision/fatality stats with human drivers is the correct one. It's quite likely that the auto-driver will make different mistakes than the typical human driver. For the sake of argument, suppose it has a greater tendancy to make the mistake you outline than a human driver does. That doesn't matter if it also avoids more collisions and fatalities in other scenarios. If the stats say you get fewer collisions and fatalities with auto-drivers, then it would be madness not to allow them.
The freedom to buy a machine loaded with crapware, and then spend time getting it to a fit state to use. Yes, Android sounds very much like the PC platform.
I'm reminded of the natives who didn't like their photo being taken because they thought it was taking their souls. People fear what is new. But they get used to it.
Credit cards have privacy implications. But people have got used to it, and they don't worry about it when making a purchase.
The future is bringing ANPR anyway. Automatic Number Plate Recognition. It's already a fact of life in the UK. And it's becoming a fact of life in the US for toll roads and priority lanes.
Your suggestion is problematic too. If you increase the cost of tires, then more people will tend not to change them when the tread is worn out.
The free ride will only apply during the early adopter phase. And it's needed to encourage this shift in technology. Once it becomes mainstream, for sure it'll be taxed, in one way or another.
Yes, it's like the Pedestrian Mode on a Garmin. scaled for the next section of the route, not scaled for the junction you're about to arrive at. It's section-by-section, not turn-by-turn. Bloody useless for driving.
Of course I can understand a north-upward map - but it's not what you want when driving. You need a representation of the junction ahead, oriented in the direction you are driving. Otherwise, your eyes are taken off the road for too long.
I would consider Apple domestic terrorists. They pay no taxes.
Then you're a loon. On both points. Of course Apple like every other corporation does lots of things to reduce their tax burden. Yet they paid $3.3 billion in tax last year. That's not "no taxes".
Of course Apple isn't strapped for cash, and neither is Samsung. The point is to make it clear that copying Apple's IP is uneconomic. And already it's working - Samsungs more recent designs are less of a copy then their earlier ones.
Android Multitasking is the easy. It's just exposing the normal multi-tasking of Linux. Of course BSD that iOS is based on has multitasking too. And indeed it's used by the system software.
But Apple didn't expose that for third parties. Rather than do the easy thing, they did something better.
Android multitasking apps gives performance and battery problems, with the result that users need to fuck around with task managers and kill apps. That is insane for a phone. And that's why iPhone doesn't make that mistake.
But hey, there's no point doing tit for tat first implementation of features. I've already proved your statement that Apple is "so far behind the curve on every feature" wrong by one example. There's no need for me to make a list.
Sadly, no. First, except to the owners of such vehicles, I actually don't see much incentive to install charging stations for cars which can do just fine without.
And yet the charging infrastructure *IS* growing. So there's something wrong with your theory.
Standard, aka slow, charging (level 2, 10~20 miles of electric range per hour), like is being used for plug-in hybrids, is only useful for pure EVs at locations where people are expected to stay for extended periods (home, work, hotel...). Their deployment elsewhere actually distracts from, and may prevent, the installation of much faster chargers (level 3, 150+ miles per hour), which plug-ins can't use and don't really need anyway, but which EVs absolutely require to 'refuel' in a tolerable amount of time.
Sure, but "slow" is better than "no". The range anxiety is much reduced if there are lots of chargers, even if many of them are slow.
And once charging points are established, they'll be upgraded if and when the traffic to justify them is evident. Yes, even though that involves a more heavy duty supply.
It's inevitable. After all, fossil fuel is finite.
There's no catch as regards charging stations. The technology of now and the immediate future is plug-in hybrids. They have no range issues because you can always fuel them with petrol (gas). But you charge them whenever you can because that's cheaper. That will provide enough incentive for a cjharging infrastructure to grow up. And as it does so, the opportunities for electric only vehicles expands.
Battery swapping stations is a harder nut to crack though.
Legal liability issues, mostly. I swap and receive at 99% worn out, 1% barely working battery and I'm the lucky guy who terminally burns it out.
Generally the idea with battery replacement schemes are that they are leased. It's the leasing company's duty to manage the degradation and recondition the batteries when needed to keep them within spec.
Yes, the plans are generally for machinery to automatically do the switch, so the weight is immaterial - the machinery is designed for it. And battery switching is generally done from below the car, so the only way they can practically be stolen is by first stealing the car. Which is a general issue with all cars.
The battery exchange scheme plans tend to be automated. You drive into a bay, a panel opens up below the car and machinery does the batter switch from below.
And they tend to be done by leasing the batteries, so it's the company's business to manage the gradual degradation of the battery packs.
This goes to the reason Apple had to produce it's own Maps system. The reason there was no turn-by-turn is that Google wouldn't allow it with their system on the iPhone.
Why do iphone users put up with always being so far behind the curve on every feature?
Don't be silly. The iPhone has many features before Android. For example iPhone now has built in panoramas by just sweeping the camera across the scene. Android doesn't.
Slashdot Mirror
1) You reaction time is far worse than a computer.
2) Your estimation of distances is far worse than machines absolute measurements.
3) You are limited to two forward facing eyes, augmented by 3 small mirrors. And you share some of the vision time with looking at the dash. An auto-car can look in all directions at once, and monitor all dashboard information and more at the same time.
4) An auto-driver will be better at maintaining a safe speed. Able to stop in the distance it knows to be clear far more often than a human driver.
5) I'd expect an auto-driver system to be seperate from any other computing devices in the car, and connected to the internet or any other vector for hacking. I'd expect them to be as immune to hacking as an auto-pilot system in a plane.
If I was 'driving' the car and came accross a steep drop - I would take control.
Why? It's not an unexpected obstacle. By the time autodrivers are allowed in consumer cars you can expect the auto-driver to be able to deal with it better than you can.
Are you expecting to just hop in your car and fall asleep and let your car take you to your destination?
Yes. I see no reason why at some point in the future an auto-driver will be a statistically safer driver than I am. So why not?
The plan to allow test vehicles to cover a large number of miles and then compare collision/fatality stats with human drivers is the correct one. It's quite likely that the auto-driver will make different mistakes than the typical human driver. For the sake of argument, suppose it has a greater tendancy to make the mistake you outline than a human driver does. That doesn't matter if it also avoids more collisions and fatalities in other scenarios. If the stats say you get fewer collisions and fatalities with auto-drivers, then it would be madness not to allow them.
Correct. Yay freedom!
The freedom to buy a machine loaded with crapware, and then spend time getting it to a fit state to use. Yes, Android sounds very much like the PC platform.
People still use the manufacturer's version of Android ? (Any manufacturer, not only Samsung).
It is bloated, slow, full of useless crap.
So Android phones as shipped are not fit for purpose? Doesn't surprise me.
I'm reminded of the natives who didn't like their photo being taken because they thought it was taking their souls. People fear what is new. But they get used to it.
Credit cards have privacy implications. But people have got used to it, and they don't worry about it when making a purchase.
The future is bringing ANPR anyway. Automatic Number Plate Recognition. It's already a fact of life in the UK. And it's becoming a fact of life in the US for toll roads and priority lanes.
Your suggestion is problematic too. If you increase the cost of tires, then more people will tend not to change them when the tread is worn out.
The Tesla seats 5 people.
The average US household size is approx 2.6.
The average US family size is approx 3.2. (not 3.2 children, but 3.2 in total.)
The Tesla is certainly big enough for the vast majority of families.
The free ride will only apply during the early adopter phase. And it's needed to encourage this shift in technology. Once it becomes mainstream, for sure it'll be taxed, in one way or another.
That was true of the Roadster, but the Model-S is much cheaper.
Yes, it's like the Pedestrian Mode on a Garmin. scaled for the next section of the route, not scaled for the junction you're about to arrive at. It's section-by-section, not turn-by-turn. Bloody useless for driving.
Of course I can understand a north-upward map - but it's not what you want when driving. You need a representation of the junction ahead, oriented in the direction you are driving. Otherwise, your eyes are taken off the road for too long.
I would consider Apple domestic terrorists. They pay no taxes.
Then you're a loon. On both points. Of course Apple like every other corporation does lots of things to reduce their tax burden. Yet they paid $3.3 billion in tax last year. That's not "no taxes".
As Apple are they realize that usability sells a hell of a lot more of their product than feature-lists.
Fixed that for you.
Of course Apple isn't strapped for cash, and neither is Samsung. The point is to make it clear that copying Apple's IP is uneconomic. And already it's working - Samsungs more recent designs are less of a copy then their earlier ones.
That's right, I don't.
Meanwhile in the huge market of China, it seems Apple Maps is already better on day one than Google Maps is after all these years.
http://anthonydrendel.com/blog/2012/9/24/ios-maps-and-china.html
Android Multitasking is the easy. It's just exposing the normal multi-tasking of Linux. Of course BSD that iOS is based on has multitasking too. And indeed it's used by the system software.
But Apple didn't expose that for third parties. Rather than do the easy thing, they did something better.
Android multitasking apps gives performance and battery problems, with the result that users need to fuck around with task managers and kill apps. That is insane for a phone. And that's why iPhone doesn't make that mistake.
But hey, there's no point doing tit for tat first implementation of features. I've already proved your statement that Apple is "so far behind the curve on every feature" wrong by one example. There's no need for me to make a list.
Sadly, no. First, except to the owners of such vehicles, I actually don't see much incentive to install charging stations for cars which can do just fine without.
And yet the charging infrastructure *IS* growing. So there's something wrong with your theory.
Standard, aka slow, charging (level 2, 10~20 miles of electric range per hour), like is being used for plug-in hybrids, is only useful for pure EVs at locations where people are expected to stay for extended periods (home, work, hotel...). Their deployment elsewhere actually distracts from, and may prevent, the installation of much faster chargers (level 3, 150+ miles per hour), which plug-ins can't use and don't really need anyway, but which EVs absolutely require to 'refuel' in a tolerable amount of time.
Sure, but "slow" is better than "no". The range anxiety is much reduced if there are lots of chargers, even if many of them are slow.
And once charging points are established, they'll be upgraded if and when the traffic to justify them is evident. Yes, even though that involves a more heavy duty supply.
It's inevitable. After all, fossil fuel is finite.
That may be more to do with your eyes than the number of cars. Priuses do tend to merge in to the general traffic much more than Ferraris.
Phoenix to LA is about 400 miles. Here's the tale of a couple of guys doing 900 miles in a Tesla one weekend.
http://www.teslamotors.com/endtoend
... that wasn't finite, and didn't pollute or contribute to global warming quite so much.
There's no catch as regards charging stations. The technology of now and the immediate future is plug-in hybrids. They have no range issues because you can always fuel them with petrol (gas). But you charge them whenever you can because that's cheaper. That will provide enough incentive for a cjharging infrastructure to grow up. And as it does so, the opportunities for electric only vehicles expands.
Battery swapping stations is a harder nut to crack though.
It's their language. Where it differs, it's the Americans that have screwed with it.
Legal liability issues, mostly.
I swap and receive at 99% worn out, 1% barely working battery and I'm the lucky guy who terminally burns it out.
Generally the idea with battery replacement schemes are that they are leased. It's the leasing company's duty to manage the degradation and recondition the batteries when needed to keep them within spec.
Yes, the plans are generally for machinery to automatically do the switch, so the weight is immaterial - the machinery is designed for it. And battery switching is generally done from below the car, so the only way they can practically be stolen is by first stealing the car. Which is a general issue with all cars.
The battery exchange scheme plans tend to be automated. You drive into a bay, a panel opens up below the car and machinery does the batter switch from below.
And they tend to be done by leasing the batteries, so it's the company's business to manage the gradual degradation of the battery packs.
This goes to the reason Apple had to produce it's own Maps system. The reason there was no turn-by-turn is that Google wouldn't allow it with their system on the iPhone.
Why do iphone users put up with always being so far behind the curve on every feature?
Don't be silly. The iPhone has many features before Android. For example iPhone now has built in panoramas by just sweeping the camera across the scene. Android doesn't.